Stop mercury pollution now

[konradv]

No now see junior thats where you are wrong again.. I speak about the hypocrisy going on and the completely ignorant way we are told conflicting things by many of the same people.. Lowering total exposure would be to start with the medical applications, seeing as how that would require the least amount of new laws, and the most benefit at the least cost.. They INJECT that mercury into people, I hardly consider a trace amount from an exhaust gas to be on the same level...

Mercury in vaccines has dropped percipituously in recent years due to the autism scare, so that example doesn't really seem to apply, and CFLs are contained and innocuous when handled and disposed of properly. The main source of mercury is undoubtedly found in the air and water as a result of industrial waste. We eat and breath DAILY. How often do you get vaccines and what % actually have mercury?

Do you have any proof of any of that junior? tell you what you show me the proof then I may decide differently, but just your word won't cut it.. And EPA statistics that cannot show anything but possibilities, are not proof of anything other than possibilities..

Proof of what? Are you denying that mercury in vaccines has been in the news and that steps are being taken to minimize its use? Are you denying that properly treated CFLs have a very low risk for mercury contamination? If you don't, and I don't see how you could, where else is this mercury coming from? Is it like the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, you don't know where it's coming from, but you definitely know its not coming from man? What IS that, selective prescience?!?!

 

[Bfgrn]

No now see junior thats where you are wrong again.. I speak about the hypocrisy going on and the completely ignorant way we are told conflicting things by many of the same people.. Lowering total exposure would be to start with the medical applications, seeing as how that would require the least amount of new laws, and the most benefit at the least cost.. They INJECT that mercury into people, I hardly consider a trace amount from an exhaust gas to be on the same level...

Mercury in vaccines has dropped percipituously in recent years due to the autism scare, so that example doesn't really seem to apply, and CFLs are contained and innocuous when handled and disposed of properly. The main source of mercury is undoubtedly found in the air and water as a result of industrial waste. We eat and breath DAILY. How often do you get vaccines and what % actually have mercury?

Do you have any proof of any of that junior? tell you what you show me the proof then I may decide differently, but just your word won't cut it.. And EPA statistics that cannot show anything but possibilities, are not proof of anything other than possibilities..

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

You keep using the same deceit, obfuscation and childish excuse. I posted this in the last thread where you said 'bring me the proof'. How about subscribing to personal responsibility and taking the initiative to educate yourself on important issues? Your reply is 'no one told me, so I don't have to know'

Well sonny boy, that excuse is no longer valid...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/190277-warning-drinking-tea-party-rhetoric-may-cause-cancer-4.html

American Lung Association Report Highlights Toxic Health Threat of Coal-fired Power Plants, Calls for EPA to Reduce Emissions and Save Lives

Washington, D.C. (March 8, 2011)—

The American Lung Association today released Toxic Air: The Case for Cleaning Up Coal-fired Power Plants, a new report that documents the range of hazardous air pollutants emitted from power plants and the urgent need to clean them up to protect public health. The report highlights the wide range of uncontrolled pollutants from these plants including: toxic metals and metal-like substances such as arsenic and lead; mercury; dioxins; chemicals known or thought to cause cancer, including formaldehyde, benzene and radioisotopes; and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to issue a proposal to cleanup this toxic pollution by March 16.

The report details the dangerous mix of toxic air pollutants that flow from the stacks of uncontrolled coal burning power plants and the adverse health effects associated with these pollutants. The report also discusses the technologies that are available for dramatically cutting these emissions—technologies that are commercially available and proven to work.

“It’s time that we end the ‘toxic loophole’ that has allowed coal-burning power plants to operate without any federal limits on emissions of mercury, arsenic, dioxin, acid gases such as hydrogen chloride and other dangerous pollutants,” said Charles D. Connor, president and CEO of the American Lung Association. “The American public has waited long enough—more than two decades. We are counting on EPA to protect all Americans from the health risks imposed by these dangerous pollutants once and for all.”

Key facts highlighted in the report:

* Coal-fired power plants produce more hazardous air pollution in the United States than any other industrial pollution sources;

* The Clean Air Act requires the control of hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants, but absent these new rules, no national standards exist to limit these pollutants from these plants; and

* More than 400 coal-fired power plants located in 46 states across the country release in excess of 386,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants into the atmosphere each year.

“People living closest to these plants, especially children, seniors and those with chronic disease, face the greatest risk, but it doesn’t stop there,” said Connor. “Pollution from coal-fired power plants takes flight and travels far into other states—threatening public health.”

Many of these pollutants “hitchhike” on the fine particulate matter, or particle pollution, that the power plants also produce. Particle pollution from power plants has been recently estimated to kill approximately 13,000 people a year. Most coal-fired plants are concentrated in the Midwest and Southeast.

Hazardous air pollutants are toxic emissions that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive problems or birth defects. People most at risk include: infants, children and teenagers; older adults; pregnant women; people with asthma and other lung diseases; people with cardiovascular disease; diabetics; people with low incomes; and healthy adults who work or exercise outdoors.

“Power plant pollution kills people,” said Connor. “It threatens the brains and nervous system of children. It can cause cancer, heart attacks and strokes.”

The report identified control technologies that are currently in use in some plants that are readily available for installation at other plants to curb these toxic emissions. This modern pollution control technology will reduce other lethal pollutants as well, including particle pollution. The law sets the cleanup requirements based on actual performance facilities, but each power plant will select the specific pollution control strategies to reduce their emissions.

“Our report shows how critical this cleanup of acid gases, metals and other toxics is to public health,” Connor added. “We need EPA to step up and safeguard Americans from toxic air pollution.”

The report is a summary of a technical analysis of these emissions prepared for the Lung Association by Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. The Lung Association is also releasing the full analysis.

 

[bripat9643]

The explanation offered for these disparities by the scientists is that the polluting particles, though identical in size, differ in their composition. The set of molecules involved can change from one region to another, leading to different effects on people's health. In addition, random statistical variability may account for much of the difference.

The real explanation is that there is absolutely no correlation between the amount of PM and the incidence of the diseases mentioned. Just like your typical climatologist, the authors of this study are just a couple of quack propagandists who eagerly produce whatever result the EPA bureaucrats request.

 

[bripat9643]

Washington, D.C. (March 8, 2011)—

The American Lung Association today released Toxic Air: The Case for Cleaning Up Coal-fired Power Plants, a new report that documents the range of hazardous air pollutants emitted from power plants and the urgent need to clean them up to protect public health. The report highlights the wide range of uncontrolled pollutants from these plants including: toxic metals and metal-like substances such as arsenic and lead; mercury; dioxins; chemicals known or thought to cause cancer, including formaldehyde, benzene and radioisotopes; and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to issue a proposal to cleanup this toxic pollution by March 16.

The evidence has already been produced showing that the American Lung Association is a paid shill for the EPA. They are on the EPA payroll.

 

[Bfgrn]

Washington, D.C. (March 8, 2011)—

The American Lung Association today released Toxic Air: The Case for Cleaning Up Coal-fired Power Plants, a new report that documents the range of hazardous air pollutants emitted from power plants and the urgent need to clean them up to protect public health. The report highlights the wide range of uncontrolled pollutants from these plants including: toxic metals and metal-like substances such as arsenic and lead; mercury; dioxins; chemicals known or thought to cause cancer, including formaldehyde, benzene and radioisotopes; and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to issue a proposal to cleanup this toxic pollution by March 16.

The evidence has already been produced showing that the American Lung Association is a paid shill for the EPA. They are on the EPA payroll.

So you and gslack are the same person...interesting.

 

[GHook93]

Sure chump. Aren't the liberals the once trying to force the mercury laced light-bulbs down the American throat? When the light bulbs get discharged Mercury will be all over the place, specifically our water!

 

[konradv]

Sure chump. Aren't the liberals the once trying to force the mercury laced light-bulbs down the American throat? When the light bulbs get discharged Mercury will be all over the place, specifically our water!

What about "proper handling" don't you get? CFLs are hardly in the same league with spewing mercury into the atmosphere.

 

[gslack]

Mercury in vaccines has dropped percipituously in recent years due to the autism scare, so that example doesn't really seem to apply, and CFLs are contained and innocuous when handled and disposed of properly. The main source of mercury is undoubtedly found in the air and water as a result of industrial waste. We eat and breath DAILY. How often do you get vaccines and what % actually have mercury?

Do you have any proof of any of that junior? tell you what you show me the proof then I may decide differently, but just your word won't cut it.. And EPA statistics that cannot show anything but possibilities, are not proof of anything other than possibilities..

Proof of what? Are you denying that mercury in vaccines has been in the news and that steps are being taken to minimize its use? Are you denying that properly treated CFLs have a very low risk for mercury contamination? If you don't, and I don't see how you could, where else is this mercury coming from? Is it like the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, you don't know where it's coming from, but you definitely know its not coming from man? What IS that, selective prescience?!?!

Junior I am no mode to play your silly game today.. I asked for proof of YOUR claims not anything else.. Now grow up..

 

[konradv]

Do you have any proof of any of that junior? tell you what you show me the proof then I may decide differently, but just your word won't cut it.. And EPA statistics that cannot show anything but possibilities, are not proof of anything other than possibilities..

Proof of what? Are you denying that mercury in vaccines has been in the news and that steps are being taken to minimize its use? Are you denying that properly treated CFLs have a very low risk for mercury contamination? If you don't, and I don't see how you could, where else is this mercury coming from? Is it like the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, you don't know where it's coming from, but you definitely know its not coming from man? What IS that, selective prescience?!?!

Junior I am no mode to play your silly game today.. I asked for proof of YOUR claims not anything else.. Now grow up..

I know, you're in denier "mode". What do I have to prove? You're the one making contentions about vaccines and CFLs that anyone who watches the news knows are FALSE. Call me all the names you want, it doesn't change a thing.

 

[Bfgrn]

Sure chump. Aren't the liberals the once trying to force the mercury laced light-bulbs down the American throat? When the light bulbs get discharged Mercury will be all over the place, specifically our water!

Quantify 'laced'?

One mercury fever thermometer is equal to 600 CFL's. One fluorescent tube type bulb (much easier to break accidentally) is equal to 2 - 5 CFL's.

THEN there is the overall mercury created by using more energy.

The Facts about CFLs and Mercury

Because CFLs use less electricity than traditional light bulbs, they reduce demand for electricity; that reduction means less greenhouse gas emissions (including less mercury) from power plants.

CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury — an average of 4 milligrams in each bulb.

No mercury is released when the bulbs are intact or in use.

Why Use CFLs?

CFLs use significantly less energy than traditional light bulbs (75% less). If every home in America replaced just one incandescent light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified CFL, we would save enough energy every year to light 3 million homes and prevent greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those from about 800,000 cars. And even though CFLs contain a small amount of mercury that could ultimately end up in the environment, that amount is significantly less than the amount of mercury avoided as a result of the energy savings.

 

[gslack]

Washington, D.C. (March 8, 2011)—

The American Lung Association today released Toxic Air: The Case for Cleaning Up Coal-fired Power Plants, a new report that documents the range of hazardous air pollutants emitted from power plants and the urgent need to clean them up to protect public health. The report highlights the wide range of uncontrolled pollutants from these plants including: toxic metals and metal-like substances such as arsenic and lead; mercury; dioxins; chemicals known or thought to cause cancer, including formaldehyde, benzene and radioisotopes; and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to issue a proposal to cleanup this toxic pollution by March 16.

The evidence has already been produced showing that the American Lung Association is a paid shill for the EPA. They are on the EPA payroll.

So you and gslack are the same person...interesting.

???? sorry im just trying to figure how came to that conclusion considering we post so differently...

What the hell does his opinion the AMLA have to do with my asking junior for proof of his claims?

And btw, you pull the AMLA PR piece out of yours or your clones ass everytime we ask for proof on this latest round of "be afraid" nonsense for more legislation.. Its still not proof now anymore than it was last 2 dozen times you posted it...

 

[Bfgrn]

The evidence has already been produced showing that the American Lung Association is a paid shill for the EPA. They are on the EPA payroll.

So you and gslack are the same person...interesting.

???? sorry im just trying to figure how came to that conclusion considering we post so differently...

What the hell does his opinion the AMLA have to do with my asking junior for proof of his claims?

And btw, you pull the AMLA PR piece out of yours or your clones ass everytime we ask for proof on this latest round of "be afraid" nonsense for more legislation.. Its still not proof now anymore than it was last 2 dozen times you posted it...

Have you READ the So the American Lung Association report??? Or is the American Lung Association suddenly some left wing alarmist group?

Would you prefer THIS one?

Coal's Assault on Human Health

Physicians for Social Responsibility has released a groundbreaking medical report, “Coal’s Assault on Human Health,” which takes a new look at the devastating impacts of coal on the human body. Coal combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. This report looks at the cumulative harm inflicted by those pollutants on three major body organ systems: the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system. The report also considers coal’s contribution to global warming, and the health implications of global warming.

Full Report

You ASKED for proof, now you HAVE proof.

 

[gslack]

So you and gslack are the same person...interesting.

???? sorry im just trying to figure how came to that conclusion considering we post so differently...

What the hell does his opinion the AMLA have to do with my asking junior for proof of his claims?

And btw, you pull the AMLA PR piece out of yours or your clones ass everytime we ask for proof on this latest round of "be afraid" nonsense for more legislation.. Its still not proof now anymore than it was last 2 dozen times you posted it...

Have you READ the So the American Lung Association report??? Or is the American Lung Association suddenly some left wing alarmist group?

Would you prefer THIS one?

Coal's Assault on Human Health

Physicians for Social Responsibility has released a groundbreaking medical report, “Coal’s Assault on Human Health,” which takes a new look at the devastating impacts of coal on the human body. Coal combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. This report looks at the cumulative harm inflicted by those pollutants on three major body organ systems: the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system. The report also considers coal’s contribution to global warming, and the health implications of global warming.

Full Report

You ASKED for proof, now you HAVE proof.

Who the hell are the PSR? Never heard of them... I would take the AMLA 's word before them and since I do not accept the AMLA's word ....

Look bfgrned, you are on some kind of crazed obsession over this claim, but there is no proof in it.. Its all speculation, they cannot prove a single death due to modern emissions... You can repost it as many times as you like and get as many other groups to agree with them, it won't make it any less speculation..

Dude you don't know the difference between Propaganda and fact.. I looked through all of that crap and in all of it they say "could" or "contributes to" or even "could contribute to"... Do you know what those words mean? They mean its a possibility... Thats it.. hell man damn near everything could fall into that category seeing as how cancer is caused by a wide range of things.....

BTW, both of your sources cited the EPA as their sources almost across the board... So yeah.... What company makes most of those technologies they are wanting to push? GE, and some their pals.. You know GE, big corporation makes a lot of military hardware... You know the bad guys... The same ones you cry about all the rest of the time you arent crying about oil...

 

[Bfgrn]

???? sorry im just trying to figure how came to that conclusion considering we post so differently...

What the hell does his opinion the AMLA have to do with my asking junior for proof of his claims?

And btw, you pull the AMLA PR piece out of yours or your clones ass everytime we ask for proof on this latest round of "be afraid" nonsense for more legislation.. Its still not proof now anymore than it was last 2 dozen times you posted it...

Have you READ the So the American Lung Association report??? Or is the American Lung Association suddenly some left wing alarmist group?

Would you prefer THIS one?

Coal's Assault on Human Health

Physicians for Social Responsibility has released a groundbreaking medical report, “Coal’s Assault on Human Health,” which takes a new look at the devastating impacts of coal on the human body. Coal combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. This report looks at the cumulative harm inflicted by those pollutants on three major body organ systems: the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system. The report also considers coal’s contribution to global warming, and the health implications of global warming.

Full Report

You ASKED for proof, now you HAVE proof.

Who the hell are the PSR? Never heard of them... I would take the AMLA 's word before them and since I do not accept the AMLA's word ....

Look bfgrned, you are on some kind of crazed obsession over this claim, but there is no proof in it.. Its all speculation, they cannot prove a single death due to modern emissions... You can repost it as many times as you like and get as many other groups to agree with them, it won't make it any less speculation..

Dude you don't know the difference between Propaganda and fact.. I looked through all of that crap and in all of it they say "could" or "contributes to" or even "could contribute to"... Do you know what those words mean? They mean its a possibility... Thats it.. hell man damn near everything could fall into that category seeing as how cancer is caused by a wide range of things.....

BTW, both of your sources cited the EPA as their sources almost across the board... So yeah.... What company makes most of those technologies they are wanting to push? GE, and some their pals.. You know GE, big corporation makes a lot of military hardware... You know the bad guys... The same ones you cry about all the rest of the time you arent crying about oil...

The irony is so thick, we need a chain saw to cut through it. Steve Milloy is president of Steven J. Milloy, Inc., which provides news and consulting services on environment- and health-related public policy issues to chemical, materials, energy, food, beverage, and other consumer product-related businesses and organizations...a PR FIRM...

You claim I don't know the difference between Propaganda and fact. Milloy and your corporate paid for PR firms have been spewing propaganda since the 1950's.

It started around 1953 when the tobacco industry was faced with the FACT cigarette smoking caused cancer. They set in motion a well funded PR campaign to pay for pseudo scientists and reports that created doubt. They knew people would not actually READ the PR reports and books. It worked very well. It delayed legislation for 40 years. The same PR tactics are being used today by Milloy and paid for climate deniers. So you spew PR, not science.

WHY don't you try educating yourself, instead of just emoting?

 

[kiwiman127]

Do you have any proof of any of that junior? tell you what you show me the proof then I may decide differently, but just your word won't cut it.. And EPA statistics that cannot show anything but possibilities, are not proof of anything other than possibilities..

Proof of what? Are you denying that mercury in vaccines has been in the news and that steps are being taken to minimize its use? Are you denying that properly treated CFLs have a very low risk for mercury contamination? If you don't, and I don't see how you could, where else is this mercury coming from? Is it like the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, you don't know where it's coming from, but you definitely know its not coming from man? What IS that, selective prescience?!?!

Junior I am no mode to play your silly game today.. I asked for proof of YOUR claims not anything else.. Now grow up..

You ask for proof and when someone supplies facts, you go into a denial mode.

Below is a response from Medscape. Medscape is a web resource for physicians and other health professionals.

What a response! It's a classic case of the serious denial of well known facts.

Air Pollution Blamed for 3% of Deaths in the United States

New York (MedscapeWire) Oct 3 — A study in the October issue of the European Respiratory Journal describes how fine dust particles released into the atmosphere really constitute an independent cause of mortality, and its authors call for urgent review of permitted pollution limits. At the same time, the study conclusively invalidates the theory that a large proportion of such deaths are due to seasonal epidemics of influenza or pneumonia.

The harmful effect of air pollution on health, and especially on the lungs, is now beyond any doubt, as established recently in Europe by an international study that caused a considerable stir. And the situation has now been found to be equally alarming in the United States.

Most of the blame can be laid on dangerous microparticles present in exhaust gases. The name given by the specialists to such tiny dust particles is PM10s (PM stands for "particulate matter" and the 10 refers to a diameter size of less than 10 microns). Owing to their microscopic size, these dust particles penetrate deep into the lung alveoli, causing serious respiratory disorders such as asthma and bronchitis.

The study looked at 5 major US cities that carry out daily measurements of PM10 concentration in the atmosphere, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Chicago, Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Seattle, Washington. Led by Joel Schwartz, professor at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, the team of scientists estimated the number of deaths potentially related to air pollution on a day-to-day basis.

According to the study, Minneapolis carries the highest risk factor: for every 10-mcg increment in the dust particles per cubic meter, the rate of daily mortality increases there by 1.3%. In Pittsburgh and Detroit, for the same concentration of pollutants, excess mortality is only 0.80% and 0.77%, again for every 10-mcg increment in pollution. The most populated city (Chicago, with 5 million inhabitants) comes fourth, and in Seattle the figure drops to only 0.44%.

The explanation offered for these disparities by the scientists is that the polluting particles, though identical in size, differ in their composition. The set of molecules involved can change from one region to another, leading to different effects on people's health. In addition, random statistical variability may account for much of the difference.

The data used for the study were collected between 1986 and 1993. During that period, the 5 cities showed a daily pollution rate of around 30 mcg per cubic meter, which is equivalent to about 3% excess mortality. Because this pollution rate is far below the authorized limit of 150 mcg, however, Schwartz and colleagues wondered whether some of the deaths should not be attributed to epidemics of respiratory diseases, such as those related to influenza or pneumonia.

To find out, they identified critical periods by looking at the number of daily hospital admissions for pneumonia: if the number exceeded a certain threshold for 10 days or more, they would classify the outbreak as an epidemic. But while they did observe a slight decrease in the number of deaths due to pollution at the time of such respiratory epidemics, Schwartz and colleagues estimated that this effect could on the whole be considered negligible. "Our results confirm the strength of the causality between PM10 exposure and deaths," according to Alfesio Braga, coauthor of the study. "They show that this association is not due to any other external effects."

Medscape: Medscape Access

If one does a Google search using the words "Air Pollution Blamed for 3% of Deaths in the United States", a person can find the report and read it without a subscription.

Now, let me guess,,Medscape is a tool of of the leftist, socialist eco-nuts!

Can anyone find a documented study that says air pollution doesn't kill?

Also, a piece from the American Lung Association has also been furnished for the deniers in this thread, but of course the deniers do what they always do,,deny, deny, deny or deflect, deflect, deflect!
How do you folks ever make it through life, when you deny factual reality?
I asked another poster in denial to post documented facts that disprove posted facts regarding air pollution and of course, that poster came back with nothing! Now what does that tell you?

 

[gslack]

Have you READ the So the American Lung Association report??? Or is the American Lung Association suddenly some left wing alarmist group?

Would you prefer THIS one?

Coal's Assault on Human Health

Physicians for Social Responsibility has released a groundbreaking medical report, “Coal’s Assault on Human Health,” which takes a new look at the devastating impacts of coal on the human body. Coal combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. This report looks at the cumulative harm inflicted by those pollutants on three major body organ systems: the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system. The report also considers coal’s contribution to global warming, and the health implications of global warming.

Full Report

You ASKED for proof, now you HAVE proof.

Who the hell are the PSR? Never heard of them... I would take the AMLA 's word before them and since I do not accept the AMLA's word ....

Look bfgrned, you are on some kind of crazed obsession over this claim, but there is no proof in it.. Its all speculation, they cannot prove a single death due to modern emissions... You can repost it as many times as you like and get as many other groups to agree with them, it won't make it any less speculation..

Dude you don't know the difference between Propaganda and fact.. I looked through all of that crap and in all of it they say "could" or "contributes to" or even "could contribute to"... Do you know what those words mean? They mean its a possibility... Thats it.. hell man damn near everything could fall into that category seeing as how cancer is caused by a wide range of things.....

BTW, both of your sources cited the EPA as their sources almost across the board... So yeah.... What company makes most of those technologies they are wanting to push? GE, and some their pals.. You know GE, big corporation makes a lot of military hardware... You know the bad guys... The same ones you cry about all the rest of the time you arent crying about oil...

The irony is so thick, we need a chain saw to cut through it. Steve Milloy is president of Steven J. Milloy, Inc., which provides news and consulting services on environment- and health-related public policy issues to chemical, materials, energy, food, beverage, and other consumer product-related businesses and organizations...a PR FIRM...

You claim I don't know the difference between Propaganda and fact. Milloy and your corporate paid for PR firms have been spewing propaganda since the 1950's.

It started around 1953 when the tobacco industry was faced with the FACT cigarette smoking caused cancer. They set in motion a well funded PR campaign to pay for pseudo scientists and reports that created doubt. They knew people would not actually READ the PR reports and books. It worked very well. It delayed legislation for 40 years. The same PR tactics are being used today by Milloy and paid for climate deniers. So you spew PR, not science.

WHY don't you try educating yourself, instead of just emoting?

Emoting??? Dude that is all your propaganda is doing.. jesus dude do you understand that a possibility is not proof? its a possibility, and thats it..

jesus you flaming loon all they have to do is imply it may be bad for you and you are ready to pass a new law.. Grow up man, its fear driven responses not fact.. Stop watching hollywood movies for history and facts, its not always like a oliver stone film moron...

 

[gslack]

Proof of what? Are you denying that mercury in vaccines has been in the news and that steps are being taken to minimize its use? Are you denying that properly treated CFLs have a very low risk for mercury contamination? If you don't, and I don't see how you could, where else is this mercury coming from? Is it like the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, you don't know where it's coming from, but you definitely know its not coming from man? What IS that, selective prescience?!?!

Junior I am no mode to play your silly game today.. I asked for proof of YOUR claims not anything else.. Now grow up..

You ask for proof and when someone supplies facts, you go into a denial mode.

Below is a response from Medscape. Medscape is a web resource for physicians and other health professionals.

What a response! It's a classic case of the serious denial of well known facts.

Air Pollution Blamed for 3% of Deaths in the United States

New York (MedscapeWire) Oct 3 — A study in the October issue of the European Respiratory Journal describes how fine dust particles released into the atmosphere really constitute an independent cause of mortality, and its authors call for urgent review of permitted pollution limits. At the same time, the study conclusively invalidates the theory that a large proportion of such deaths are due to seasonal epidemics of influenza or pneumonia.

The harmful effect of air pollution on health, and especially on the lungs, is now beyond any doubt, as established recently in Europe by an international study that caused a considerable stir. And the situation has now been found to be equally alarming in the United States.

Most of the blame can be laid on dangerous microparticles present in exhaust gases. The name given by the specialists to such tiny dust particles is PM10s (PM stands for "particulate matter" and the 10 refers to a diameter size of less than 10 microns). Owing to their microscopic size, these dust particles penetrate deep into the lung alveoli, causing serious respiratory disorders such as asthma and bronchitis.

The study looked at 5 major US cities that carry out daily measurements of PM10 concentration in the atmosphere, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Chicago, Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Seattle, Washington. Led by Joel Schwartz, professor at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, the team of scientists estimated the number of deaths potentially related to air pollution on a day-to-day basis.

According to the study, Minneapolis carries the highest risk factor: for every 10-mcg increment in the dust particles per cubic meter, the rate of daily mortality increases there by 1.3%. In Pittsburgh and Detroit, for the same concentration of pollutants, excess mortality is only 0.80% and 0.77%, again for every 10-mcg increment in pollution. The most populated city (Chicago, with 5 million inhabitants) comes fourth, and in Seattle the figure drops to only 0.44%.

The explanation offered for these disparities by the scientists is that the polluting particles, though identical in size, differ in their composition. The set of molecules involved can change from one region to another, leading to different effects on people's health. In addition, random statistical variability may account for much of the difference.

The data used for the study were collected between 1986 and 1993. During that period, the 5 cities showed a daily pollution rate of around 30 mcg per cubic meter, which is equivalent to about 3% excess mortality. Because this pollution rate is far below the authorized limit of 150 mcg, however, Schwartz and colleagues wondered whether some of the deaths should not be attributed to epidemics of respiratory diseases, such as those related to influenza or pneumonia.

To find out, they identified critical periods by looking at the number of daily hospital admissions for pneumonia: if the number exceeded a certain threshold for 10 days or more, they would classify the outbreak as an epidemic. But while they did observe a slight decrease in the number of deaths due to pollution at the time of such respiratory epidemics, Schwartz and colleagues estimated that this effect could on the whole be considered negligible. "Our results confirm the strength of the causality between PM10 exposure and deaths," according to Alfesio Braga, coauthor of the study. "They show that this association is not due to any other external effects."

Medscape: Medscape Access

If one does a Google search using the words "Air Pollution Blamed for 3% of Deaths in the United States", a person can find the report and read it without a subscription.

Now, let me guess,,Medscape is a tool of of the leftist, socialist eco-nuts!

Can anyone find a documented study that says air pollution doesn't kill?

Also, a piece from the American Lung Association has also been furnished for the deniers in this thread, but of course the deniers do what they always do,,deny, deny, deny or deflect, deflect, deflect!
How do you folks ever make it through life, when you deny factual reality?
I asked another poster in denial to post documented facts that disprove posted facts regarding air pollution and of course, that poster came back with nothing! Now what does that tell you?

First of all the studies said repeatedly "could cause" and other similar words which mean exactly that could cause.. Could = possible but not necessarily. lots of things cause the same illnesses and they know it, thats why they say that.. its their safety net if they are wrong.. Now you may want to regulate everything under the sun simply because it may have health risks, but frankly I don't think its a good idea ever much less now when we are already in financial trouble. You went to spend trillions on a possibility? Oh sure why not it not real money to you is it... its not your money its other peoples money right? yeah just spend it all and print more, or raise taxes on the rich they can afford it.... yeah we know the mentality all too well...

Before you even dare speak to me like you know me, understand this.. I lost both parents to cancer. One when I was 19, the other just 7 years ago. 2 years ago I lost my oldest brother to a brain tumor. Cancer has taken more from me and my family than I like to remember.. it made me mad, and it still does.. All 3 of them smoked, and all 3 of them died of non-smoking related cancers. Does that make smoking non-cancerous? hell no! but it doesn't make smoking the cause of their cancer either. So what am I to do? I go on and hope its the end of cancer taking from my family. I am still learning how day by day.

But one thing I will not do, is live in fear my entire life over it. Nor will i let my fear allow me to become such a coward that I refuse to let anyone else live their life.. Smoking is bad for you no doubt, and the fact it was kept from people so long was terrible. And they should be punished for it. But if you look around today most people know the risks of smoking yet so many still do it. Why? because they want to..Why don't they make cigarettes and tobacco products illegal? Because they make a great deal of money from its sales and the markets that its built from.. Why don't you fear mongers go after the people who have allowed it to continue all these years? the truth is the same government that tell you they want to ban this or that cause its bad for you will not ban it, but rather tax it..Thats the hypocrisy in the system you want to give more power too everytime there is a problem you don't want to handle..Ban smoking then, and be done with it but don't expect me to support legislation that does nothing but generate income off their misfortune...

Now onto the other BS... if they can put the same crap in a shot and expect me to accept it, than they can't talk out of the other side of their face and tell me Its bad in trace amounts in the air. I can'rt believe the levels of reactionary hysterics among you.. Now produce the evidence not possibilities....

 

[Bfgrn]

Who the hell are the PSR? Never heard of them... I would take the AMLA 's word before them and since I do not accept the AMLA's word ....

Look bfgrned, you are on some kind of crazed obsession over this claim, but there is no proof in it.. Its all speculation, they cannot prove a single death due to modern emissions... You can repost it as many times as you like and get as many other groups to agree with them, it won't make it any less speculation..

Dude you don't know the difference between Propaganda and fact.. I looked through all of that crap and in all of it they say "could" or "contributes to" or even "could contribute to"... Do you know what those words mean? They mean its a possibility... Thats it.. hell man damn near everything could fall into that category seeing as how cancer is caused by a wide range of things.....

BTW, both of your sources cited the EPA as their sources almost across the board... So yeah.... What company makes most of those technologies they are wanting to push? GE, and some their pals.. You know GE, big corporation makes a lot of military hardware... You know the bad guys... The same ones you cry about all the rest of the time you arent crying about oil...

The irony is so thick, we need a chain saw to cut through it. Steve Milloy is president of Steven J. Milloy, Inc., which provides news and consulting services on environment- and health-related public policy issues to chemical, materials, energy, food, beverage, and other consumer product-related businesses and organizations...a PR FIRM...

You claim I don't know the difference between Propaganda and fact. Milloy and your corporate paid for PR firms have been spewing propaganda since the 1950's.

It started around 1953 when the tobacco industry was faced with the FACT cigarette smoking caused cancer. They set in motion a well funded PR campaign to pay for pseudo scientists and reports that created doubt. They knew people would not actually READ the PR reports and books. It worked very well. It delayed legislation for 40 years. The same PR tactics are being used today by Milloy and paid for climate deniers. So you spew PR, not science.

WHY don't you try educating yourself, instead of just emoting?

Emoting??? Dude that is all your propaganda is doing.. jesus dude do you understand that a possibility is not proof? its a possibility, and thats it..

jesus you flaming loon all they have to do is imply it may be bad for you and you are ready to pass a new law.. Grow up man, its fear driven responses not fact.. Stop watching hollywood movies for history and facts, its not always like a oliver stone film moron...

Well you have made the contrasts clear. So let's be concise. I believe ingesting arsenic, lead, mercury, dioxins, formaldehyde, benzene, radioisotopes; and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride are harmful and contribute to illness and deaths.

YOU DON'T...so you are calling me a 'flaming loon'...

 

[k2skier]

He has as much an ideological axe to grind as uncensored2008. They'd rather yell than back up their claims as if that gives more credence to their for-profit, blatherings. Interestingly, BOTH are conservative

When have any of you environmental whack jobs ever backed up any of your claims?

I have about a teaspoon of mercury...come and eat it and about 6 thermometers while your at it...since it's so safe...

 

[bripat9643]

When have any of you environmental whack jobs ever backed up any of your claims?

I have about a teaspoon of mercury...come and eat it and about 6 thermometers while your at it...since it's so safe...

Actually, it would probably just pass right through you and be perfectly harmless. MethylMercury is toxic, but pure Mercury is mostly inert.

That being said, even if a teaspoon of Mercury would kill you within hours, that doesn't mean the amounts you're exposed to from coal fired power plants is dangerous. As is the case with every known toxin, there is a threshold amount below which there are no harmful effects. Power plant emissions are well below that amount.